killjoy

How does the above quote/metaphor connect with Canada in any way considering the current crisis? 'Arms economy'? What arms economy? 'Psychosis of war hysteria'? The way I see it the "psychosis of war hysteria" or the "propaganda of fear" isn't coming from people who support the mission. Quite the opposite. .

jdobbin: <<None of the following is directed at you, no big whoop, just coffee talk>> You know what's ironic about our society and the media right now? The government (any government) has the reputation for lying to meet an objective or to sway opinion and yet the media never gets seriously accused of it (or accusations that they are never taken seriously), in fact they have this stereotype, if you will, that they are always seeking the truth and "tracking down the tough stories" or "telling it like it is", and yet I personally guarantee the straight press releases from DND, NATO and even the most of the time the US State Department are far more accurate, devoid of exaggeration or propaganda/rhetoric. They generally release straight level-headed and measured information. The funny thing about those departments, ironic to popular perception, is they (almost) never lie. They may withhold information; they may neither confirm or deny; They may even say "we are not aware" if asked a sensitive question about something they do not want to admit they know, but they never (yep, never) call an elephant a Woolly Mammoth; or label a tabby a tiger; or refer to a couple of rocket attacks as a 'Taliban offensive'; when there's a battle they do not include insurgent elements (Iraq) or Taliban as part and parcel to any civilian casualties to push those numbers higher and make them sound worse. What kind of society are we living in where the media releases 90% grade 'A' B.S., while our fascist imperial masters release 90% accuracy? .

jdobbin, nothing about your last post I can really disagree with except: Well naturally he wants as much support as he can get and it's his job as leader of his country to do or even say whatever he can to get it. More troops would be nice this is true but his assesment of whether or not the Americans diverted too soon is moot here (although there is credence to it) simply because its just a politicians way of asking for more troops. .

From day one anyone in a PR position to speak about the mission has indeed white washed or purposely made the claimed expected duration ambiguous. This is true, but not the fault of the mission itself. IOW I agree with that perception. I, and in all ways that count NATO, have never considered that the mission has changed because the mission overall is based on objectives met, not time. Whereas "how long" is often the only concern back home. .

Naturally, because it is the first government. Who voted for George Washington or Mackenzie? Look it up: next to no one that's who. By any of today's standards these first elections would've been considered 'fake' or 'puppet'. The point is that once you have the system in place it takes care of itself once it needs no further help from outside. Of course most people already know that but it won't stop them from making disingenuous arguments from it. .

Of course the question is completely stupid and if the asker had an honest bone in their body they'd know the answer already. It supports the troops because it supports the mission they've been fighting for by giving them a realistic amount of time to complete what is a daunting and risky proposition under any circumstances instead of yanking them out just when the fight begins, but after they’ve already sacrificed lives. Really pretty easy answer there if you're honest about it. I dunno. maybe Canadians thought Tora Bora would be it; we'd be done. If they did they weren't being realistic. .

The mission in Afghanistan has never changed. The story the media has been telling has changed. The story the media tells us about the mission changed 180 degrees immediately after our government changed. That's the double truth, Ruth. That's all there is to it. Bottom line. No argument. No "kinda-sorta" about it. The media story under the Liberal government: "Our gallant beloved Canadian soldiers ran the evil Taliban out and are providing peace and security for Afghans while handing out candy and making the world a better place." 24 hours after Harper won the election the media story changed to this: "We are risking our gallant young soldiers on a doomed mission put forth by the Evil Bush Empire to conquer the worlds oil supplies. We can never provide security for Afghanistan. Harper is a Bush puppet and has led us into another Vietnam. Historically Afghanistan has never been occupied (self-evident mistruth since they were being occupied insidiously by Pakistan elements). We are only bringing death and destruction onto a poor defenseless people for the cause of profit." There is no argument here. No debate. That's the way it went and frankly anyone who can't see that is either: lying, wasn’t ever paying attention to begin with, or incredibly stupid. As I pointed out: we all like to think of ourselves as free thinkers and intelligent people but the media tells you what your opinion is and because it takes too much time and effort to truly get all the information on the subject people just lap it up. Those were the two 180 degree different stories being told and they coincide with the 180-degree change in popular opinion about the mission. In other words there is no other conclusion to come to besides the one that accurately points out that the media controls your opinion. Oh – that and they lie for a living – MUCH more than any politician does. .

I understand that. I don't take it to gospel. However it remains even without that article that the Taliban increased poppy production far beyond anything like it before, and it did flood the market. They weren't selling it themselves . Then they outlawed it on religious grounds. They started it, because funding from the West had ceased, then they ended it for reasons unknown. I don't think it was because they suddenly lost their appreciation for money and arms. Anyways the quote seems logical to me. It isn't worth all the risk and investment of running drugs if the street price falls because the market is flooded, yet the consequences and level of law enforcement one must bypass remains the same. It's the same as any other market, and that it is controlled at this ultimate level, by international mobs is no hoax. It's a multi billion dollar business. Well I understand your point here but international drug cartels aren't exactly like OPEC. Besides Afghanistan isn't the only market. Furthermore they didn't have to sell it all at once. For all you or I know they could've been planning to rely on surplus, which would've been considerable, after outlawing it until they decided one day it wasn't a moral crime any more. Also if you have more supply than you have addicts then it is no longer a sellers market, is it? OPEC has a product it sells to consumers who are addicted to it. There is also a limited and finite supply. That favors the nations of opec - the seller. If there were suddenly an unlimited supply, what would OPEC have to say about it? I admit I have no way to tell if the article is true or not, but I do see the logic in it. BTW- Don't know if you're implying anything here or not but it might be worthwile to mention that the customer for 90% of the Afghanistan heroin is Europe. .

Ok. I can certainly understand that. But what has being annoyed by it got to do with finding a solution or the reality of the situation? Honestly what has being annoyed by it have to do with anything? I might be annoyed by kemotherapy or surgery but what does being annoyed with it have to do with the reality of having cancer what to do to treat it? .

It is not ridiculous to say that undermining the mission is dangerous to the troops. That doesn't mean we can't talk/debate about it. The bottom line as I feel I've managed to prove is that popular perception of the mission is created by the media and the media is inherently over pessimistic and in many cases is spreading outright disinformation. Armed conflict, including this one with the Taliban is lost only ever by one of 2 paths. Loss because of inferior firepower or tactics and loss because of political will. This is the ONLY way the Taliban will win against us and they know it. Subsequently the media is their harshest weapon. To have an army of self-centered, self-serving journalistic Nabobs and self-proclaimed 'experts' inundate us with hand-wringing and empty rhetorical opinions, logical fallacies and tripe that the sky is always falling is, unfortunately, one of the Talibans only weapons. In fact the biggest weapon terrorism has is the media. A car bomb goes off half-way around the world and you will still hear about it even if it has nothing to do with you. When the IRA was employing terroristic/guerilla tactics they only solidified their enemy against them, but it got the rest of the world thinking they were simple misunderstood freedom fighters. Blatant one-sided pandering pessimistic propaganda most certainly is helping the Taliban and terrorists everywhere. It works especially well on Westerners who percieve themselves as 'worldy' or 'educated' when they're not. They appeal to the readers sense of ego. Is it not unreasonable to debate the current state of affairs and whether or not we should go, stay, stay until this date or change what we're doing. I don't believe that has a thing to do with 'supporting the troops'. Is it unreasonable to ask those who are pessimistic to give it an honest chance, including giving it a realistic amount of time and resources to realistically be able to achieve the goal without standing up and shouting that we're doomed, the mission is doomed, everything is doomed every time we receive casualties? Every time a car bomb goes off? It is understood by any reasonable and educated adult that a mission like this needs a reasonable amount of time and there are undoubtedly going to be car bombs, friendly fire and casualties. This is a given. It's disingenuous for people to say, "See? I told you it was a bad idea" every time they read a blurb. .

Whatever Durgan. You've proven you utter contempt for truth, learning and the facts. No you're sitting there spinning more crap trying to make it look like you know what you're talking about when not only do you not, but you are unwilling to learn the facts even when they're put right in front of you. I'm sorry that you can't even get the 'Cole's Notes' version correct that's your problem. At least now eveyone can see you're not worth taking seriously. Oh hell yeah. Lets just use our imagination instead of reading and looking at the situation for what it is. Lets not deal with reality...oh no! Lets all just sit here and use our imagination to divine reality. Who needs facts and education when you've got your imagination? Lets just finger-paint us a solution to this instead. If we do we'll be back there in ten years or less killing more of them and us. .

Anyone who doesn't understand Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan by using the Taliban needs to read up on it before making an 'informed descision'. Unbelievible to me how many people want to sit here talking like they know what's best to do about the mission in Aghanistan and yet have no idea what brought us to this point historically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban And the drug trade, started by Pakistani influenced and controlled Taliban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghanistan Unbelievable. Please! I'm sincerely pleading and begging you people in the name of Afghans who have suffered in the past and will in the future: read about it people and get informed before we even start to ask ourselves "why are we there and what are we doing?". .

.

Durgan says: Then you repeat your ignorance and prove your unwillingness to learn. Nice try to save face but you've proven you don't know jack about when you're talking about anything about the region or anything about the actual meaning of reinstalling this vice department. Maybe go read a book for once in your life? Unbelivible! You sit there and claim you are 'dimming it down to the essentials' so the peasants could understand! Hilarious. I mean you can't even spell it right and you didn't even know what it was until last night and you sit here and still claim it's something it's not. How delusional can you get? Hilarious: "I reduced the Hoodoo Law to its essentials for the peasants could understand. ". No YOU DIDN'T. You HAD NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS. Jeziz you can't even spell it correctly. You had no idea what it was and you REFUSE to read what it is, why it's important and what relevance it has to the Taliban. If you simply want to sit there with your head stuck up your backside while prancing around here claiming you're "Bringing light to the ignorant", fine, but don't expect us not to laugh at you. "Anybody can cut and paste" he says! loL! What does that have to do with the Hudood Ordinance and it's connection to the Taliban and the fact you had NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS? It's not the same thing as Shia law. It is not common throughout the Muslim world. It is exclusive to Pakistan, no matter how many times you say, "No it isn't" Then you repeat your utter ingnorance and contempt for reality as well as truth in plan face of the facts when they're put in front of you. Either you're lying or crazy or stupid. Which is it?One more time, read carefully: Pakistan. Not "Muslim countries". Pakistan. OK? Pakistan. Say it a thousand times until you understand. The Hudood Ordinance is not common in all Muslim countries. IS NOT . Period. No matter how many times you want to call blue red it isn't. Again; read and LEARN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance And again, and 100 times if I have to, read and learn before you talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto The rest of this: is just a nonsensical meaningless display of ignorance. Dugan my advice is that you just STFU. You aren't capable of understanding anything relevant to the situation apparently, and are obviously unwilling to learn. "They have to be dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, to the truth and the light." .

A reasonable concern imo. Look, Harper's a goof, and I voted for him even. I don't regret voting for him but I voted with eyes open knowing he was a goof all the while. That doesn’t mean I pay credence to what he says. Simply put if there are no serious signs of advancement in the situation in Afghanistan by 2009 I will be the first in line to be demanding that we get out. That's not to say I think it'll be over and 'won' by 2009, but if Afghanistan can't stand on its own without military backing by then (they'll probably still need money) and there's no real positive signs of development then it'll be lost. My point is regardless of what Harper does or says now, there's nothing he can do to take the option of getting out in 2009, if it is still 'sucking', off the table. Harpers a small dog on an even smaller leash. Again, a reasonable concern. The deal they (Pakistan prez) just made with their native Taliban is worth watching and waiting a bit. If they are true to their word it may make a substantial difference. .

Can't argue with that. Or at least not over anything beyond trivial symantics. I'd rather make common ground. If you don't mind a personal observation, you're travelling at the proper 'speed limit' for rational objective thought, imo. Speed kills that. I can respect that about you. .

You got that right. Further more any single one of them could've gotten out of their mission to Afghanistan by simply claiming their family needed them right now or just about any other reasonable excuse. IOW, the soldiers in Afghanistan are members of a volunteer army who more-or-less volunteered to go to Afghanistan as well. Any one of them could've opted out and been replaced. .

jdobbin I cannot defend what the media or the US state department feels they need to do in order to trump up the importance of that event, which really was simply a foregone conclusion with invasion. I don't know if I've heard of any "alarm" in NATO about this, (I could be wrong), but suffice to say your scenario is as likely as elements in the Taliban or aligned with the right war/drug lords or subvertly inserted into the police force or the ANA or a dozen other organizations could offer the same threat. I don't believe it's prudent to believe just because Afghanistan will implement Shia law like everyone knew they would, that this development is going to lead directly to the same crap the Taliban was trying to enforce. After all 1/3 of the cabinet are women...although I believe Karzai should've appointed his electoral opponents, the Tajik leader (forget his name at the moment) and Dostrum. But they are not without their say or influence either. .

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. And you aren't even willing to spend 30 seconds to learn. No it is NOT "simply punishments for sex and alcohol in many Muslim countries". You are mixing that up with Shia law which is EXACTLY what I said. Thank you for not only showing me you have no idea about it but you aren't willing to do a 30 second Goggle search to find out what it actually is. It seems scrutinizing the details and getting informed on the subject isn't your highest priority. The Hudood Ordinance is exclusive to Pakistan and represents and entire division within the country as politicians move back and forth between making it law and trying to take it off the books. Please read, O' "Enlightener of the Ignorant": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance Still think the Hudood Ordinance is "simply punishments for sex, alcohol and theft in many Mulim countries"? Do your homework. There is no substitute for the details, pal. 1. It is exclusive to Pakistan. 2. It is harsher and more culturally centered with Pakistan than Afghans traditional laws. Taliban exporting Pakistan influence, just as I said. 3. Subsequently, as I said, the Afghan implementation of Shia law in no way equals what the Taliban were doing which was exporting and FORCING Afghanistan to live under a cruel set of laws that wasn't theirs, wasn't part of their culture and IS inherent to the philosophy of the Taliban, NOT Afghanistan. Which is E X A C T L Y what I said, O' great and wise bringer of light to the ignorant. Here is some more background about the Taliban and their Hudood Ordinance connection, if you're willing to learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto .

Again you see the surface elements and miss the real and accurate state of affairs. People try and make a big deal about them choosing to base their laws on Shia law. So what? Every land in the region does that from Pakistan to Arabia. They each have their own version. This is NOT the same as the Taliban version of the Hudood Ordinance from Pakistan influence that is harsher than the Afghans ever wanted. Go look up Hudood Ordinance, o'bringer of truth. They are not the same. Again you read a few words in a paper and expect to grasp a region history and all the nebulous factors of their society from a couple of paragraphs and use the typical, "That sounds about right to me" fallacy of logic. If you did not know about the Talibans Pakistani influence and their version of the Hudood Ordinance in Afghan society then I would suggest you start doing some studying of those influences and the vast differences what the Taliban was actually doing and the way the afghans want to live, even if it has similarities to a Westerner, before you start claiming you're bringing light to the ignorant. You read 3 paragraphs and you know everything you need to know apparently. lol. .

Debate? Messenger? all you did was cut and paste an article and that's it. That doesn't even make you a messenger, the author was. Oh and you offered a weak metaphor. What i did was give a thought out and relevant opinion. That you don't acknowledge that the 'message' that you cut and pasted may be false is irrelevant. That you think that's an attack is even more so. That you think what I wrote isn't debating is very telling. That you seem to think the 'medium is the message' is not a valid point is really too bad. Frankly I was 100% right about every point I made about the media, the way it operates and the disruptive effect it has on popular perception and I’ll bet my right arm I can find writers, journalists and editors that would all back me up. .

theloniusfleabag Thank you for reading all of that. Ok first off Kaplan has a nasty delusion for thinking the West is Shangri-la and can do no wrong, while everyone else from Africa to China are hopeless savages, practically sub-human. He’s an ardent believer in modern US colonialism at some points and a foe of it then next. He's the kind of guy who thinks 'shock and awe' is the 'best thing for them'. He defends the US war on the Natives and says this about Iraq: So I'm not so sure he's a great source for your argument, but I'll go along with it: Where are the Mongols now? Where is the Japanese empire in China? How are the Hindus now compared to the way they saw the world 200 years ago? That they are from a 'different world' is an ironic metaphor, to me, because they are in the same world and the same people and you can already see the growing similar causes and effects in progress. The separation between the urban and cosmopolitan; between the rural and the old. They are changing in the same direction and with the same pangs the rest of us have and likely will in the future. Change is an omnipresent constant in human social development. This is the most threatening thing to the extremists from Tehran to Islamabad, even more than 'smart' bombs. It's not going to go away. It's not going to stop. It also doesn’t change my point that pure dis-information is being blatantly plastered on any front page just to push a few more quarters, not to keep people informed or to spread the 'truth'. I also stick to my point that people buy it and get an erroneous picture of whets going on. The point that you're getting what you say here from a book and not a paper is not lost on me. This is another myth. Democracy at gun point. I'm sorry but this just isn't. When the UN sends forces to protect food shipments are we forcing people to eat at gunpoint? No. People want the food. But the food won't get there without the protection right? There is no occupation in any true sense of the word. There is no real use arguing that either. If you disagree then we disagree. If they wanted us gone, not even the majority mind you, just a large minority, or even 25% really wanted us gone now, then we'd already have been forced to leave. You say it can't be done if there are guns to protect, but sometimes it needs the help. You know what can be done at gunpoint? The subjugation of the many by the few which is what will happen. The majority is more than willing to see this out if only some of the other pressing problems could be addressed. The vast majority of Afghans don’t want the Taliban (and the Arabs and the Saudis and the Pakistanis) anymore than they want the soviets back. The point remains also, what happens when the Taliban return? They're just going to forget the little war they declared on the West? The one they declared before 9/11? Will just be forced to go back in 10 years to kick them out again? How many civilians will die in that 'shock and awe'? What's really historically ironic here is that Pakistani's, saudis, Arabs and Iranians and all of their money came to Afhganistan to 'liberate them from the Soviets' only to turn around an occupy as the Taliban, imprison them, subjugate them and drain them for all the heroine they're worth while taxing the farmers to kingdom come. NATO goes in to kick them out and try to keep them out to see if Afghanistan can actually stand on it's own two feet or not (and it's looking like they'd like to) and we're the 'occupiers'. Supposedly we're the ones trying to force our ways on them. Tell that to the women. No one like insecurity but they're not as stupid as your writer seems to think. I just want to reintegrate that I respect your opinion. It's not as though I think you don't have reason to believe what you do. I just disagree. .

incorrect analogy. The real analogy is there's a freak in the neighborhood who is constantly running up to people's houses in the middle of the night, trying to wake them up and convince them their house is on fire when it's not. Should I run out of my house every time someone is pulling my leg or cries wolf? I don't "like" the story because it's blatantly lying and if you cut the rhetoric and bombastic exaggeration and loaded analogies and mis-truths and half-truths you'd end up with about 2 sentences of nothing. That's too bad because they're always telling the same story: all war is a war against the people (which it isn’t except in the most meaningless way [i.e. obviously all who fight are people]), unless it's a Marxist war. I see. No, this story is as close to the 'fact's you find believable...mostly because of other stories like this. You have no idea, nor do you have any intention of really thinking about it. Allow me to prove it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So many articles and opinion pieces out there with out any logic or basis in reality at all and people just eat it up. Example, from the Globe the other day: "Why are we in Afghanistan? It's not so Afghan girls can go to school. Or so there can be free elections. Or so the drug trade can be stopped. If any of those reasons fit, Canadians should be fighting in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, or half a dozen other countries where tyrants hold power over their people." Probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in print, and I've been to Alabama. People read that, think about it for about 1 second and say to themselves, "That makes sense". But it doesn't. That's like saying the police and the crown prosecutors and our entire legal system isn't in place to stop/catch/punish murderers or rapists or thieves at all. It's all a big farce. What's the proof of that? Well there are still those who get away with those crimes of course. It's so 'obvious'. It's not a logical argument at all and a complete non sequitur actually, but so few scrutinize it for even a second. Many others don't even care if it's true or not, they're simply responding to their 'rage-against-the-machine' culture of peer pressure. What would their picculi-smoking girlfriends think if they didn't tow the 'alternative radio' line? So much easier just to go with the flow - "CIA createed OSama"..."Afghanistan is pointless"...I mean who cares if it's true or a lie? They're living the great '60's myth...protestin' and more protestin'. Truth is malleable to them and really has no place in their fashion. Plenty of time to be "right wing" when they get out of school, get married and start making money. Or how about: "There's no way Afghanistan, a nation of heavily divided warlords, tribes and sects can ever live peacefully in a democracy." People say something like that on a political forum and they're laughed at because everyone knows if you simply go two countries to the East there's India and a living example that proves that statement wrong. People read it in a news paper, and since the medium is the message, there MUST be something to it, right? Few question it and many just absorb it because it's better than really thinking. Better to lease, broker or steal an opinion than construct a rational one yourself, or so it is for most people. Someone was asked to write a story to fill some space and presto! There's a 'story'. Or how about: "Afghanistan can never be a stable nation because it never has historically" Sounds logical, right? It isn't. Again, people read that in a news paper or maybe on a blog and they think it makes sense, but it doesn't does it? People barely question it if it's printed but there is no logical or historical basis to support that statement. World wide history and social evolution proves the idea that just because, 'something that has never happened before means it'll never happen', is completely stupid. I guess we never have to worry about full out nuclear war then, eh? I mean it's never happened so....Womens rights? Never happend before so....Abolish slavery? Never gonna happen. That's not critical thinking, that's moving with the sheep. The REAL sheep. Just because it's printed doesn't mean a thing you still have to scrutinize, analyze and even visualize yourself. Especially when the writer is so O B V I O U S L Y bias and pandering to a specific crowd. I don't agree with everything someone like Gwen Dyier says but at least he's level-headed. They used to scoff at the Afghan Army when it was less than 1000 and there was no recruitment. Now it's at 35000 and 2000-3000 recruits a month. Guess what? The media doesnt write about the ANA any more. I wonder why. .

theloniusfleabag We're going to have to disagree there. I think this image is being superimposed with Iraq. This isn't Iraq. I admittedly do not have any links at the moment but a very high proportion of the ones caught are Pakistani, Pakistani criminals and older Afghan Taliban that in all likelihood escaped the first time. It's undoubtedly true that they do get recruitment from Afghan nationals even now but even that contingency must be viewed relatively. That is to say recruitment, car bombs, roadside bombs...all of these things are going to be around for quite a while. Maybe even after we leave and there is, hypothetically, a reliable, stable self governing body there capable of continuing on it's own. The question will always be one of intensity. Admittedly the intensity is pretty bad at the current moment but I would remind that this coincides with Pakistani forces extensively playing the anvil (or hammer) and pushing them back from 2001/02. This may seem slow but that's the course of events: We pushed them in, Pakistan pushed them back and in between they had a fair bit of free travel in between, or put another way they can never stop moving. Also this increase coincides with a recent agreement with Pakistan to extend Waziristan to native Taliban in return for a cessation to their interdiction with Afghanistan. IOW, that would mean, if they were true to their word, that it would be time for all Afghans who wish to stay to cross asap into Afghanistan and stay there. Thus an increase. on a side note I've always been hopeful about diplomacy with the Taliban because unlike al Qaueda or insurgents you have a body that can actualize an agreement whereas with an insurgency or terrorist cells there can be no guarantee. In short I dispute the level of Afghan nationals, and reinforce the idea that levels of recruitment are a given but must be considered based on relative level. Certainly we always have options. I agree. However remember that the Afghans do not. Their fate is on the wind. Giving the nation enough time to develop in a protected incubator rater than a power vacuum. Just my opinion. This is what I'm pointing at. It's not a 'real war' right now. You're right obviously. Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban and give them time and we'll see how far it goes. These things have a tendancy to go as far as eitehr side wants them to. Again: What is Right wing? I don’t care what the 'right wing' says. Harper today said our soldiers died fighting 'evil'. He's full of shit. There is no pretty face to fighting. Many of those evil Taliban are simply young men caught in a very bad situation. The terrible thing about a conflict is the only thing that makes you 'deserve death' is that you picked up the rifle in the first place. That law goes unbroken whether you're a 'good' person or a 'bad' one. Many of the Taliban are simple bullies, and if this were a movie they'd all 'deserve' it. Many of them are simple shepards, farmers, orphans. Many just don't feel there's any other way. Again: that's how cookies crumble. It doesn't change the lesser of two evils, and conflict is never a victory any more than it was a defeat of diplomacy before it began. .

From the link: "Political Affairs.com - Marxist thoughts Online". I'm convinced. That's a source that would never tell a 'story'. jdobbin. OMG. Nobody could ask for more patience than that. I think that's perfectly reasonable. .